Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Hammond

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Hammond 2020 NY Slip Op 31895(U) June 16, 2020 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 156418/2016 Judge: David Benjamin Cohen Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] INDEX NO. 156418/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. NYSCEF: RECEIVED 111 06/16/2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE or NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK. IAS PART SS - - - -- - ·- -·- - -- CAMBRIDGe MUn.JAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY ll'f/o EMPIRB CONOOM INIUM C/O HIYEE REALTY CORP , DECISION & ORQeA, Plaintiff. Index No 15641812016 Motion Sequc:nc.e.No. 004 JOHN HAMM01''D, WILLIAM MURPHY. and KEVIN DOLAN, DcfendantJ -----------~X HON DAVID B COHEN. J .S.C. . In thi s w brogation action. plaintiff, Cambridge Mutual Firt tnsurance Company a/s/o Empire Condominium d o Hi )'tc Rcalcy Corp (Cambridge). moves, pun;uant to C PLR 321 2, foe an Of'dcr granting ii summll)' judgmen1 as to liability against dd'endants John Hammond (lWnmood). William Murphy (Murphy). and Kevin Doi.an (Dolan).jointl)' and severally .BACKGROUND Cambridg.e wu the insurance carrier for Empire Condominium, an apartment building located at259 Ehu.bcth Street, New Vorlc, NY, where dtfcndants were tenants (verified C<lmplaint, New Yort St CtJ Elee Filing System (NVSCEFJ Doc No 7111 S-7) Defendants occupied a duplex. 1.putment(Hammonddepasi.r:ioo tr, NVSCEF Doc.No. 71 at 11-12) On FcbrulI)' 13. 2016, a fircoccurrtd in the bedroom of the lower IC'Vcl of the duplex (FDNY incident repon. N'YSCEF Doe No 75 ai 2). It is undisputed that the lire began in Hammond's room Hammond occupied the lowet" level bedroom but had left the night bcf()('C and wa1 not prc:$¢1111.1 lhc limeorthe fire (NYSCEF Doc No 7 1 .i'2 1). Hammond.a college student, wu away visiti ng his parents in Long ls!and when 1hc fire began and had left 1hcapartmcnt the day 2 of 7 [* 2] INDEX NO. 156418/2016 NYSCEF DOC. RECEIVED NO. 111 NYSCEF: at06/16/2020 bd'ore(rd 24) His roommllt$. Dolan Ind Murpby, -.we not the aparunmt •Mn It present thel'irebcpa(id 1t24~2 S) SituatedW1thin l-lanmond'1room,ArrlOftlocbcrtN.nas,wualamp attbt foot of his bed(id at 16) Hammond wuuld nun the lamp on and ofTwilh theute ol'a wall switch (Id 1198). The lamp wu liwatcd on a lipoo 1he bedframe lmmcdi11ely adjacent to lhe wall(ki aa IOS-106) Thecordran!iomtheoull~&lon&thenoornexlt()thebed,upthclamp (id) H.ammood'sbedrOOOI wulcuJlydwnda.id mDS1ofthtadjaom1 livin& rvom was ~by lhe.fuund w.cer ~y spn)'ed in ancfTon tontinpilh it (Id at 25) The following day, 111 fDNY Fire Manhal, CJ Kandopoulot. inspccccd the~ of the fire(NYSCEF Doc No 7S) llls repott swesth&ttbeoriginof1hefire i1dcarical in na.tute (k/ at l) He testified that 1he firewu caua«t by "IOne rypeofdectrical wiring which is outside of the wall" (Kandopoulos depo.ition 11, NYSCEFDoc No 771! 20) AFrlDAV!TS l.n 1Upportclitsmocion for iummaryjudpnftlt. plaintifTaibmitS tbeexpen: affidnit cl Larry A Wharton, an dtdrical enJiMtting cona.iltant (Wbancn afT, NYSCEf Doc No n) WhlrtCW1 avers that lbc bu.ild1ng's electrlcal 1ystan CUI be eiimiu1ed u a pouib!e cause and oriain of the fire because lhe winna 'Within the r«>epUCle device box wu protected from the fire cood1tions (Ki. 16) Further, he found thll thedearical WC activity (wnd on the lamp power cord indicated chc wall swiedl wu"oe" 11 thell:IMofcf)t fire and dw power wuavailable 10 the lamp(Nt 17) 111sno1.Wl1il Whlnon'sreplyafl'idavi1 whereheconchtdel lhlttbcsubjea fire wu the result of the lamp in 100 dose Pf'®mhy to bedding material (Wharton reply aff, NYSCEFOoc No 100111) ptainnff.:Jso submits the affidavit olEugtt1tJ Pieuak, a lire investigator (Piezu.k a!f. Doc No 72) Pictzak swes tha11e a:amirwion :Xtbr.lampshroud dilClmed physical evidmt.e 3 of 7 [* 3] INDEX NO. 156418/2016 NYSCEF DOC. RECEIVED NO. 111NYSCEF: 06/16/2020 ofbumt cloth and melted remains ofa glau light bulb and obscrvatioos of the outlet and conduCtQl'!J showed oo evidence of adverse electrical activity (Id at 4). It should be noced tha1 while Pittzak's affidavit refers 10 a full report a nd photographs, 1aid report and photogn:phs were ooc a part ofpltintitr s motion submission, nor wu the omiuion cured in il.!I reply papers (id. at 6). However. thecoun takes judicial notic:e of Pictzak's report and photographs that have been &-filed (see Perez vNew Y«lrCityHous. Aufh.. 41 ADJd505. SOS [1st Dept 2008} (taking judicial ooticeofthe court's computcfized record•]; &nedeffo v llya11 Corp.• 2020 NY Slip Op 30794[U), •4 [Sup Ct, NY County 2020} [noting that •the coun m"'y take judicial notice of previOU!ly i.>filcd documents*]). Picztak concludes that the cause of the fire was ''the result of appamit heat from the incandescent bulb of the desk lamp igniting combustibles on the bed, which was in close proximately to/contact wilh the buJb" (Pieztak e:Kpen disclosure, NYSCEF Doc No. 104 at 57). Defendants retained Robert M. Benyman, a consulting principal engineer (Benyman aff, NYSCEF Doc No 94). He could not ascertain whether the lamp was on or off at the time of the fire (Id. at 17) Berryman concluded that the CX'act physical location of a heat source and fucl interaction and cause of that interaction resulting in the subject fire could noc be identified (id. at 19) DISCUSSION "[TJhc proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facic showing of entidemcnt to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to elimina1c any material issues of fact'" (Alvarez v J>ro.spect Hosp.• 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986): Kealsc Winegrod vNtw York Umv. M~d Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 . 853 (1985J) Once thcmovmt has demonstrated a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment. the burden shifts to the party opposing the 4 of 7 [* 4] INDEX NO. 156418/2016 NYSCEF DOC. RECEIVED NO. 111NYSCEF: 06/16/2020 motion to pcodooe; evidentiary proof in admissible rorm ~mcient to establish the existence of material IUUCS of• flCl whic:b ~re a trial of tk action (Cq:Jirr" C...w.an & WaMfirld, 74 A03d 669, 669 fist Dcpc 2010}. lw./J.SMUs«/ 16 NYJd 766 (20111) On a mocion for tummvy judgment. 1he role of the ccutt is that of issue.-firdina. not 1~amirwion (/nswanc~ Corp. of/tl.Y vC•ntrolMut. "IS. Co .47 ADJd469, 412 {ht Ocpt2008}). ..ToatabLish a prim• fade ~aim of negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate (I) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximalel)' resulting therefrom'" (ffeHomm1 "Cuyof N"' Ycri, 66 NY2d 1026, 1027 (1985]). Pl&intiffugues that the above dcments t;LnesJismce arc met and that i1 has satisfied ilS prima ftcie burden with the submission of aflidl"Ats from Pid?M and Wharton, as well a the Kandoploulos' depo$!ticm t~monyand firem.wl rqJOn P1aintiffargucsthal lhmmond's liability hu bcco cscablisbed sinccPietzak. Wharton and Kaneloplouk» mled out the building's electrical wiringu tbecauscofthcfircand agree that the fireoriainatcd in Hammond's room (plaintifl"saffirmatioo in support, NVSCEF Doc: No. 67139). In essence, plaintiff argues that it did nor cause or cretlC the condition that eaused the fire. While thi1 argument co.lid defeat 1 motion for!Ummaty judgment, in this maner, pl&intitris the movant, and as such, must establish that dcf'endants created the conditioo (Assoaa1ttJMtll. ln.i. Co. v Kipp·,. Arcadian fl, 298 AD2d 471, 471-479 (2d Dept 2002) rro prove• prim• faciecascof nealiaence • plai.otifJ'is required to show that the defmda1n created the condition or thal the defendant bad actual OI" conW\ICtive notJce of the condition"] [intcmal qwotation marlts and citaOonsomiuedD "NesJigcnce cues by the;r very narure de noc usually lend themselves to summary judgment. 1irice often, even ifaJI parties are in agrecmen! as 10 the underlying faru. the very ques1ion of negligence is ibe'l f a question for julJ determination" (Ugarri:a "Schnueder, 46 5 of 7 [* 5] INDEX NO. 156418/2016 NYSCEF DOC. RECEIVED NO. 111 NYSCEF: 06/16/2020 NY2d 471. 474 [ 1979), JS NY2d 361. 364 [1974D. Here, $eeAndr~vf~nn1~roj, ~remaitlf maierial iuues of ract that preclude ll!mmary judsment in favor o( plain1i1T. While Piezuk and Wh11non opine that the origin of the fil'e wu the lamp in cl ose proximity to bedding. Fire Marsh•I Kaneloploulos testified thar the cause of the fire WM electtkal wiring. and. hid he detennined that ii wu a light bulb too close to combustible malerial, he would h11ve noted ii and u5Cd l different code on his report (NYSCEF Doc No. 77 at 7J). Funhermin, there is an issue of fact as to whether or nor the lamp was on at the time of the frre. LutJy, lhcre is no testimony or evidence in the record of defendants' ntgligen1 usage of the lamp "IA] plaintiff will generally be e11titled to summary judgment 'ooly in c•ses in which there is no conflict at all in the evidence. the defendant' s conduct fell far below any pttminib!e standard of due care, and the plaintiff's conduct eitherWllS not really involved .. .or was clearly of excmpluy prudence in the circumstances (Andre, JS NY2d It )6S [citation omitted)) This is no1: such a case: Since plaintiff's showing wu insufficient 1odemonstn1.1e i~ entitlement 10 judgment, the burden never shifted todefendanrs to raise 1 triable issue offact(.see Ahou:, 68 NY2d 11324) Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for wmmary judgment on the <:ause of action sounding i n negligence is denied, regardless of the sufficiency oftheoppos.ing papcn(.st>t! Winegrad, 64 NY2d at853) On the cause of action sounding in breach of contract. plaintiff makes DO arguments, failed to anac:h lht lease or any contracts. and does not cite to any cue law Accordingly. lhis portion of plaintiff's motion is also denied 6 of 7 [* 6] INDEX NO. 156418/2016 NYSCEF RECEIVED DOC. NO. NYSCEF: 111 06/16/2020 CONCLUSION ORDERED th•t ptain1ifT Cambridtic Murtal Fire ln!JU11t1CCC'ompany a/alo Empir~ Condominium clo lliycc RcaJty COfll 't motion for summary J!ld~nt (mOCH>n ~ 0~ 1cd: Juc'I< 16, 2020 7 of 7

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.